So-called Manga Artist Mocks Syrian Refugee

Photo by Jonathan Hyams 

From The Japan Times, October 8, 2015.

Manga artist removes illustration mocking Syrian refugee

A manga artist behind a Facebook illustration labeling a refugee from Syria a selfish freeloader has taken it down at the request of a photographer who criticized her for distorting his work.

On her Facebook account Thursday, artist Toshiko Hasumi refused to apologize, claiming her illustration, based on a photo of a girl at a refugee settlement in Lebanon taken by Canadian documentary photographer Jonathan Hyams, did not constitute copyright infringement.

Hasumi, however, explained she deleted the illustration at Hyams’ request early Wednesday because “the fact remains I have caused him enormous trouble.”

“But I will not apologize no matter what,” she said. “Because unlike in Japan, you’re destined to lose in a court battle overseas once you’ve admitted to your fault.”

The illustration contains a thought bubble that says: “I want to live a safe and clean life, have a gourmet meal, go out freely, wear pretty things and luxuriate. I want to live my life the way I want without a care in the world — all at the expense of someone else.

“I have an idea. Why don’t I become a refugee?” it concludes.

Hasumi rejected accusations it was racist, claiming she did not seek to denigrate Syrians, she told The Japan Times.

Instead, she said, it was meant to ridicule economic migrants “pursing a safer, more comfortable life in a foreign land under the guise of pitiable asylum seekers.”

For his part, Hyams was quick to express shock at the illustration on Twitter: “Shocked + deeply saddened anyone would choose to use an image of an innocent child to express such perverse prejudice,” he said.

“What a shameful misrepresentation of the plight of the Syrian people,” he continued, adding the photo was taken for the independent charity organization Save the Children.

An online furor has broken out in response to Hasumi’s illustration, with the number of Change.org signatures calling on Facebook to recognize it as racism totaling more than 10,000 as of Thursday.

Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/10/08/national/social-issues/manga-artist-removes-illustration-mocking-syrian-refugee/

A BBC report provides more information and context. It reports that Japan has offered to donate $810 million to help Syrian and Iraqi refugees but refuses to take in any of these refugees. Last year Japan accepted only 11 of 5,000 potential asylum seekers.

The so-called manga artist also posts anti-Korean posts on her Facebook page.

While there has been discussion of copyright infringement of the photographer, what about the image rights of the girl? Or better yet, did the so-called manga artist get permission from the girl's parents? Why did this so-called manga artist need "inspiration" from an underage girl? Was there any research done on the actual situation of the girl?

VAOJ will not show the problematic illustration.

Read more at BBC.com (and see the ugly image if you want...): http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-34460325

"Monkey who took grinning 'selfie' should own copyright: U.S. lawsuit"

A follow-up from a previous VAOJ post. This story borrowed from MSN News.

A rare crested macaque monkey who snapped a well-known, grinning "selfie" should be declared the photo's owner and receive damages for copyright infringement after it was used in a wildlife book, animal rights activists argued in a federal lawsuit filed on Tuesday.

Naruto, a six-year-old macaque who lives free in the Tangkoko Reserve on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, took the image and several others about four years ago using a camera left unattended by British photographer David Slater, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said in the suit.

The so-called Monkey Selfies that resulted came from "a series of purposeful and voluntary actions by Naruto, unaided by Slater," said the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

"Naruto has the right to own and benefit from the copyright ... in the same manner and to the same extent as any other author," the suit said. (Link to 'selfie' published by PETA: http://bit.ly/1V8Hnnl)

Slater told Reuters he felt "rather bemused" and persecuted by the lawsuit, which he said seemed to be a publicity stunt.

He said he was very disappointed not to have been contacted by PETA in advance, and described himself as a low-paid wildlife photographer who has been struggling to earn a living.

"I am sympathetic in my book for animals having rights to property in some circumstances, but in no way do I mean copyrights," Slater said in an e-mail.

"Their focus seems more aimed at making me out to be a criminal than someone who loves and respects and fights for animals. ... I have to wonder what are the true motives behind this attack on me," he wrote.

The lawsuit names Slater, his UK-based company Wildlife Personalities, and Blurb, Inc., a Delaware-based corporation which beginning last year published and sold for profit in the United States a book containing copies of the photos. Naruto's orange-eyed, beaming selfie is its front cover.

PETA said it was bringing the legal action on the monkey's behalf because he could not, "due to inaccessibility and incapacity," and that the court had jurisdiction because of the book sales made in the United States.

The Copyright Act of 1976 was "sufficiently broad ... to extend to any original work, including those created by Naruto," the group's complaint read.

Sulawesi crested macaques are critically endangered, according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species.

Between 4,000 to 6,000 live on the island, and PETA said their numbers have decreased by about 90 percent in the last 25 years, mostly due to human encroachment on their rainforest homes.

PETA asked the court to declare Naruto the author and copyright owner of the photos, and to award the monkey damages.

It also sought a court order letting PETA and a noted primatologist, Dr. Antje Engelhardt of Georg-August University, Gottingen, Germany, administer Naruto's rights on condition that all proceeds be used solely for the benefit of him, his family and community, "including the preservation of their habitat."

A spokesman for Blurb, which describes itself as a self-publishing and marketing platform, said the company did not comment on pending litigation.

Source: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/monkey-who-took-grinning-selfie-should-own-copyright-us-lawsuit/ar-AAeDuuo?li=AAa0dzB&ocid=mailsignout

I wonder where the name Naruto comes from? And it seems David Slater did much to help the monkey - like supply the camera and make the prints...

Workshop: Redefining Access--Issues of Access, Archives and Copyright in Japan

Announcement from H-Net:

Recent decades have seen an extraordinary increase in channels of access to materials in print, sound and image. Intense struggles about the conditions and forms that access should take are ongoing.

Momentous changes in how we produce, circulate and store materials new and old directly affect everyday life, the public sphere, and legal frameworks and practices. The meaning of access is changing to include editing, remixing and re-circulation. While a new kind of economy forms around access, struggles ensue that involve states, corporations, activists and public institutions.

The context of Japan presents a unique set of challenges. The situation in Japan is particularly restrictive and difficult to navigate for anyone with the goal of gaining access to media materials, or of providing wider access to them.

The attempts to speed up the passing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its possible consequences renew the sense of urgency about these issues. Japan is at the center of the TPP negotiations, and will exert considerable influence on its outcomes. TPP is only one factor in what is an ongoing, fundamental transformation, but it is an influential one.

This workshop aims to bring together different groups directly involved with dealing with the challenges of these struggles and their considerable consequences. It assembles researchers, librarians, legal experts and industry representatives. Each of these groups speak about the issue of access with a slightly different language. This workshop provides a platform for finding common concerns and locating spaces for interventions.

The workshop looks at three aspects of this complex situation:

First, the concrete problems and issues concerning archiving and access of materials in Japan.

Second, the ways we can understand and theoretically frame this situation and the possibilities it harbors.

And third, what kind of concrete visions and expectations we might have for the further development of the situation concerning media materials in Japan.

*No pre-registration is necessary, anyone is free to attend the event.*

*Location: Meiji Gakuin University, Shirokanedai Campus, Building #2, B1 Floor, Room 2102*
*Date: June 13, 2015, 10:00 - 17:10*
*Organizers: Alexander Zahlten (Harvard University), Roland Domenig (Meiji Gakuin University)*

*Campus Map*: http://www.meijigakuin.ac.jp/en/campus/shirokane/*

Ethics of Visual Anthropology in Japan - Part Eight: The Dialogue Continues

I cannot believe it has been 5 years since the beginning of VAOJ's Shooting Culture in Japan project. The first goal of the project was to establish and suggest some guidelines for shooting film and photographs in Japan for students in my Visual Anthropology of Japan course. Through the years my students have produced successful blogs, photo exhibitions and films with no major ethical or legal problems. The second goal of the project was to begin and promote dialogue and discussion of the methods and ethics of shooting culture with an emphasis on Japan. VAOJ produced seven posts providing various sources and perspectives on the issues of shooting film and photographs in Japan. You can review these posts at the following url:

http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/02/ethics-of-visual-anthropology-in-japan_12.html

I am happy to report that the dialogue has continued (or was going on in places I had not yet seen). Here I want to provide a long overdue update that includes important resources dealing with photography and visual anthropology from academic institutions, anthropologists and photographers.

First, I would like to examine the efforts of the Society for Visual Anthropology (SVA, a section of the American Anthropological Association, AAA). On November 28, 2001 it produced the following:

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Ethnographic Visual Media

AAA STATEMENT produced by the SOCIETY FOR VISUAL ANTHROPOLOGY

Ethnographic visual media (specially film, video, photography and digital multimedia) play a significant role in the production and application of anthropological knowledge and form an integral part of the discipline’s course offerings. Anthropologists involved in the production of visual works make valuable scholarly contributions to the discipline. In addition, anthropologists increasingly include visual media productions as part of their curricula vitae. Departmental and university Committees for Hiring, Promoting and Tenure are thus charged with judging the scholarly quality of these non-print works. Yet not all anthropologists bring appropriate experience or training to their evaluation of visual media and no standard guideline exists.

The above is the first paragraph which seems to be mostly concerned with academic institutions being able to recognize and judge the merit of visual methods and images in anthropological research. The last sentence is important that it indicates the lack of any guidelines in methods and evaluation. See the whole statement at the following url:

http://www.aaanet.org/about/Policies/Guide_Visual.cfm

In 2007 the SVA, especially members Sara Perry and Jonathon S. Marion, began a series of discussions and roundtables on the ethics involved in visual anthropology. Their publication, "State of the Ethics in Visual Anthropology"(Visual Anthropology Review, Vol. 26, Issue 2, pp. 96–104) includes a description of the first three events (2007, 2008, 2009). Below is a brief overview of the SVA sponsored discussions and roundtables (italicized descriptions come from Perry and Marion 2010 for the first three events; descriptions of the last three events are borrowed from announcements on the SVA blog).

2007 "Ethics and Examples: A Discussion Regarding Visual Ethics"

Main theme: real-world ethical matters faced by anthropologists working with visual data (p. 96).

2008 "The Ethics of Visual Data: Picturing Inclusion, Collaboration, and Engagement"

Of note: cases from the subfields of archaeological, sociocultural and biological anthropology (p.97).

2009 "End/s, Ethics, and Images: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Main theme: visual media, as with all forms of representation, are often used and understood in unanticipated ways outside and sometimes within their original anthropological frameworks of creation (p. 97).

2010 “Ethics and Images: A Discussion of Visual Ethics and Circulation”

Main theme: to explore the ethical considerations implicated and involved in the intersections of images and circulation.

2011 "Traces of the Image: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Questions of interest: How have histories of anthropological practice impacted on our contemporary management of imagery? How are shifting visual technologies and intellectual paradigms disrupting or rearranging our ethical priorities? Where is representational authority situated in unstable, multiply-occupied/authored anthropological contexts?

2012 "On The Boarders of the Image: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Of particular interest is the iterative and unstable nature of image use-the navigation of visual value systems and moralities across time, space, cultural and institutional context, particularly when circumscribed by programmatic ethical review models.

2013 "Conflicting Accounts: A Roundtable Discussion on Visual Ethics"

Goal: to investigate the responsibility of photographers, filmmakers, ethnographers to present a ‘balanced’ representation of the conflict.

These authors are to be commended for their work and keeping the dialogue going. Their "State of the Ethics in Visual Anthropology" also provides guidelines from other anthropological associations that have ethical guidelines for their members that the SVA and AAA currently lack.

Association of Social Anthropologists of the UK and Commonwealth - Ethical Guidelines for Good Research Practice (March, 1999)

These guidelines address such issues as personal and moral relationships, trust and reciprocity between the researcher and research participants, power relationships, informed consent, rejection of visual methods, intellectual property rights, copyright clearances, etc. See the details at the following url:

http://www.theasa.org/ethics/guidelines.shtml

Statement Of Ethical Practice For The British Sociological Association – Visual Sociology Group (December 2006)

These guidelines start out with an important Statement of Intent:

The statement does not represent a core method for resolving ethical choices or dilemmas, but aims to give direction and stimulate consideration of ethical factors in sociological research utilizing visual methodologies/methods.

The statement is not an exhaustive list of ethical considerations, but rather a guide to ethical practice in professional activities.

The strength of this statement rest ultimately on active discussion, reflection, and its continued use by sociologists. In addition, the statement will help to communicate the professional position of sociologists to others, especially those involved in or affected by the activities of sociologists.

The document goes on to consider professional integrity, legal considerations, relations and responsibilities towards research participants, covert research, anonymity, privacy and confidentiality. See details in the following url:

http://www.visualsociology.org.uk/about/ethical_statement.php

These two sets of guidelines are important and helpful. Again, many thanks to Perry and Marion for supplying them in their article. Perry and Marion go on to comment about attempts to provide guidelines:

...what they witness is our collective struggles with matters of visual competency and authority: with questions about what constitutes ‘‘the visual,’’ who owns it, who can reproduce and educate about it, where it resides, how it can be manipulated and construed, and with what effects, and who has the skill to manage it with the fewest adverse ramifications. At stake, thus, are major issues of accountability, responsibility, social justice, authorship, rigor, specificity, and overall proficiency and training in image production and circulation. These are matters common and significant to all forms and subjects of visual representation and to all who make, disseminate, and consume such representation. They may not always be manageable with the same tools or intellectual strategies, but as the SVA ethics roundtables attest, they are present and potent across the anthropological field - no subdiscipline excluded (p. 100).

Perry and Marion also indicate that a SVA ethics committee has been formed. I look forward to hearing more about this group and their work.

***

Another helpful resources that sheds light on these issues specifically in Japan is the edited book by Jennifer E. Robertson, Politics and Pitfalls of Japan Ethnography: Reflexivity, Responsibility, and Anthropological Ethics (2009; Routledge Press). ann-elise lewallen provides a chapter entitled, “Bones of Contention: Negotiating Anthropological Ethics within Fields of Ainu Refusal” (p. 3-24) where she describes the 1985 lawsuit of Ainu activist Cikap Mieko against editors of Ainu Minzokushi (Ainu Ethnology) for unauthorized publishing of her photo. lewallen writes:

In the portrait rights lawsuit she later launched, she challenged the way that scholars had treated her as a ‘research object’ and criticized the books portrayal of Ainu as ‘primitive,’ ‘barbarian,’ and ‘uncivilized.’ Although the lawsuit is framed as a ‘portrait rights case,’ Cikap’s rationale for launching the case stems from usage of her photograph in a text that epitomizes the colonialist invasion of Hokkaido and academic excess (12).

One result of this lawsuit was the Japanese Society of Ethnology (JSE) 1989 “Statement on Ainu and Research Ethics” which established general standards for Ainu research, urging researchers to recognize Ainu as a distinct ethnic group, to promote collaborative research, and to promote public education of Ainu issues (12). But JSE guidelines for all research lack except for their Research Ethics Committee brief report in Minzokugaku Kenkyu (society journal) that touched upon issues including relations between researchers and researched, concerns related to gender, obligations to repatriate research findings, copyright and portrait rights, informant remuneration, and language and translation issues (12). lewallen discusses the problem of a perceived "ethics allergy" [where a] compulsory code might impinge on academic freedom (13).

***

One final source I would like to present is a very important book that was mentioned in a previous VAOJ post and is especially relevant for this discussion:

日本写真家協会 [Japan Professional Photographer’s Society]
2007 スナップ写真のルールとマナー [The Rules and Manners of Snapshot Photos]. Tokyo: Asahi Shinsho.

This book is written in Japanese; I take all responsibility for any errors in interpretation of ideas or language. The book was written in the context of more and more digital cameras and cell phone cameras available and thus being used more often in public. In some instances, intentional or not, problems have arisen in photographing and/or the dissemination of images. The book endorses good relationships with people in the realms of trust, manners, etiquette, morals, human interaction and human rights. In the areas of publishing and displaying photos the book provides legal definitions and discussions of portrait rights, copyright, use rights, personal rights, property rights and publication rights. More specifically it provides various scenarios and gives advice for each setting. These scenarios include street fairs, parks, sight-seeing locations, temples/shrines, mountain hiking paths, sporting events, shops, etc. The following are general themes that appear in various sections of the book that I have summarized and feel to be good advice for taking photos in public in Japan (especially in the realm of not for profit and for academic use only):

1. Get permission; under most circumstances a release form is not necessary. Smile and give the ”simple asking gesture” before you shoot. It is usually obvious when people do not want to be photographed.

2. Explain what you are doing and offer to send/give photos to the people you are photographing.

3. If people object, don’t take the photo.

4. Don’t take covert photos.

5. Don’t get in the way of events or people resting (from an activity or hiking, for example).

6. Respect people and their property. Understand their personal and human rights.

7. Have a confident, positive attitude; always be grateful for taking photos.

8. Put yourself in the place of your subjects: would you want to be photographed in that particular situation?

This good advice along with the various information presented from these resources seem to reinforce the scenarios and advice offered in Part Seven of this series. VAOJ will keep this dialogue going through introducing more resources and posting related and articles. Please contribute to this dialogue through comments, ideas, experiences and recommended related resources.

Update: "Monkeys, ghosts and gods 'cannot own copyright' says US"

From The Telegraph, 8/21/14:

In the wake of controversy over Wikipedia’s free and worldwide distribution of a monkey ‘selfie’ against the wishes of the man who claims to own copyright, the US has issued new guidance that says monkeys, ghosts and gods are all banned from possessing image rights.

The US Copyright Office has published a draft update to its rules regarding ownership of creative works like photographs, text and art – the first changes in more than two decades – which explicitly state that it will only recognise pieces produced by a human.

Among the 1,222 pages of updated rules and regulations are explicit bans on works produced by “nature, animals, or plants” or “purportedly created by divine or supernatural beings”.

In a list of examples of prohibited applications is “a photograph taken by a monkey” - an apparent nod to the recent Wikipedia case.

Wikimedia, the US-based organisation behind Wikipedia, has refused a photographer’s repeated requests to remove one of his images which it uses online without his permission, claiming that because a monkey pressed the shutter button there is no copyright on it.

The group has included the image in its database of royalty free images, which it offers for use worldwide, but the photographer claims it is his to sell and licence.

British nature photographer David Slater was in Indonesia in 2011 attempting to get the perfect image of a crested black macaque when one of the animals came up to investigate his equipment, hijacked a camera and took hundreds of selfies.

Slater has since complained that Wikimedia’s distribution of the image is affecting his ability to make a living from his work. He incurred costs of several thousands of pounds to arrange the photo shoot, which required the use of his own expensive equipment.

Also prohibited under the new US copyright rules would be “a mural painted by an elephant” or “a claim based on the appearance of actual animal skin”.

Despite the bans on works created by gods and ghosts, the Office may register a work where the application states that the work was “inspired by a divine spirit”, it says.

The update will “set the stage for a number of long-term improvements in the area of registration” of copyright, claims the Office. It is described as a “comprehensive overhaul that makes the practices and standards of the Office more timely and transparent”.

The draft will remain on review until it takes official effect some time around December 15 this year. The practices within it are not law, but do inform future legislation and set out how the Office makes internal decisions.

In the UK, under the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988, a photographer can claim rights over an image even if he or she did not press the shutter button if the results are their “intellectual creation” – for example, they came up with the concept of a monkey taking a “selfie”.

However, such a case has never been tried in court and the outcome would be uncertain.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/11048695/Monkeys-ghosts-and-gods-cannot-own-copyright-says-US.html

Original story: http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2014/08/who-owns-this-monkeys-selfie.html

"Who owns this monkey’s selfie?"

Image and text borrowed from MSN News, August 7, 2014.

When a monkey commandeered a nature photographer’s camera on a small Indonesian island a few years ago, the results were extraordinary. Among the images captured by the crested black macaque were a few amazing images of himself.

Those monkey selfies made headlines back in 2011, and two of the photographs made their way to the Wikipedia page for the monkey’s species, which is endangered. Wikipedia only uses images that are in the public domain, but the feeling was that, since the monkey snapped the photo, no one could claim the copyrights to it.

“This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested,” Wikipedia’s collective band of editors explained.

The nature photographer, David Slater, felt otherwise. He sent a takedown request to the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates Wikipedia, claiming that the photographs belong to him because they were taken with his camera.

“We didn’t agree, so we denied the request,” Wikimedia said in a new report about takedown requests it has received. The organization clearly highlighted the monkey selfie dispute in an effort to draw attention to its broader campaign against censorship.

See the whole story and related video: http://news.msn.com/offbeat/who-owns-this-monkey%E2%80%99s-selfie-1

VAOJ took up similar issues in the Japanese context in 2009 that included information from North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources. In their Image Use Protocol which suggests "Best practices for locating and using Japanese visual images for teaching, research, and publications," the following are rights holders to a particular image: copyright holders, owners of objects (in the image), image owners and subjects in the photos. So for the self portrait (I hate the term "selfie") of the monkey, can we ask permission for image use from the monkey (does the monkey know sign language?)? Does the photographer automatically have copyright because it was his camera and his efforts that brought the photo to the attention to the public? Did the photographer have permission from the Indonesian government or other agencies where the monkey is located? Why didn't Wikipedia ask the photographer in the first place? Does Wikipedia have the right to establish what is public domain on their own?

These are complex questions and issues that illustrate current copyright ideas/practices are no simple monkey business...

North American Coordinating Council on Japanese Library Resources: http://guides.nccjapan.org/content.php?pid=195789&sid=1645699#5364144

VAOJ Shooting Culture in Japan project: http://visualanthropologyofjapan.blogspot.jp/2009/02/ethics-of-visual-anthropology-in-japan_12.html

Fair Use in Japan?

From The Japan Newspaper Publishers and Editors Association's NSK Bulletin Online No. 104 June 2010:

Copyright Holders Warn About ‘Fair Use’ Rule

NSK and 13 other copyright holders’ groups on May 21 called for the government to exercise caution in introducing a much-disputed “fair use” rule as a part of Japanese copyright law.

The rights holders submitted their demand to the Council for Cultural Affairs’ copyrights section, as well as to the section’s Subcommittee on Legislative Affairs. The advisory council is part of the Cultural Affairs Agency, which is considering introducing a Japanese version of the U.S. “fair use” rule.

“Fair use” is a concept under which copyrighted material may be used in a limited way without requiring the permission of the rights holder, on the understanding that the use of the material shall not have the intent or effect of impairing the interests of the rights holders.

The rights holders’ written demand openly criticized the Subcommittee on Legislative Affairs for attempting to prod deliberations in favor of the introduction of a fair-use rule without thoroughly debating whether the absence of a fair-use rule in Japan is causing “a problem for society.”

The right holders’ groups argued that the council should conduct hearings with stakeholders once again to determine what problems, if any, are resulting from the absence of a fair-use rule in Japan.

The 14 organizations called on the council to further examine whether such a rule is actually needed in Japan, as well as assessing the possible repercussions of such a rule on various stakeholders.

Under Japan’s Copyright Act, any limitation of the rights of copyright holders must be a specific stipulation, rather than being covered by any general rule.

The mighty have spoken again... I wonder what kind of problem they think is not out there in Japanese society? I wonder if they even know what the internet is? Fair use certainly falls under collaboration and good communication. If done correctly, fair use would be like an academic bibliography; one who uses a portion of copyrighted work would cite it. Anyway, for a brief background on the Japan situation, click here.

For more on fair use, see the Center for Social Media web page:
http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/